Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 23:07:30 GMT -8
Only 15? For now these came to mind, also because they are the ones I often encounter, very often in blogs and on social networks. 1 – According to Both the Accademia della Crusca and the Treccani dictionary put both forms as correct "according to the circumstances" and "depending on the circumstances". As Crusca points out, language purists once considered only the first form correct, which is the one I prefer to use. I have never liked the form "depending on" and I continue to find it cacophonous. However, there are those who write "according to the circumstances": definitely the wrong form . 2 – Next and affixed. Agree? These errors, which I have often seen made here and there, also emerged in some comments on my post on the use of the language.
Examples: place the refrigerator next to the cupboard put your clothes away agree with what I say It's clear that you really have to be a goat to make these mistakes, but reading what people write, especially on social networks, it seems that the Homo sapiens species is transforming into Capra hircus . Flainco exists, but it is the first person singular of the present indicative of the Special Data verb flanker: I bring the car alongside the pavement apposto exists, but it is the past participle of the verb appousre: I affixed my signature to the contract OK, it doesn't exist 3 – At present This error is truly indigestible to me, yet Italian journalists continually propose it to me on various news programmes. Do you do it on purpose (or on purpose? Good question!)? “At the state” only exists in sentences like “I gave the State (note the capitalization) 5000 euros in taxes”.
The correct phrase is " in the current state of affairs ", or "in the state of things". If we say "currently we can't hire anyone", it means nothing. In the state of what? 4 – It should have been If after the servile verb (duty, will and power) there is the verb to be, then the correct auxiliary is the verb to have. So we have to write and say “it should have been easy”. However, in some cases we must use the verb to be as an auxiliary: "A good grammar could have been useful for writing in Italian". The Accademia della Crusca, however, gives some advice to never make mistakes. Consider the verb followed by the servile to discover the right auxiliary: I drove, I had to drive I have been, I had to stay I drank, I had to drink But pay attention to the following variations: I married Martufagna, I had to marry Martufagna I got married to Martufagna, I had to get married to Martufagna If after the servile there is the verb to be , then the correct auxiliary is to have : I could have been someone else I wanted to be a good friend I had to be compliant And what do we do if after the servile verb there is an intransitive one ? Then we can use both be and have : I had to leave I had to leave Ah, but there are also nominal particles like “ci”, “vi”, etc.
Examples: place the refrigerator next to the cupboard put your clothes away agree with what I say It's clear that you really have to be a goat to make these mistakes, but reading what people write, especially on social networks, it seems that the Homo sapiens species is transforming into Capra hircus . Flainco exists, but it is the first person singular of the present indicative of the Special Data verb flanker: I bring the car alongside the pavement apposto exists, but it is the past participle of the verb appousre: I affixed my signature to the contract OK, it doesn't exist 3 – At present This error is truly indigestible to me, yet Italian journalists continually propose it to me on various news programmes. Do you do it on purpose (or on purpose? Good question!)? “At the state” only exists in sentences like “I gave the State (note the capitalization) 5000 euros in taxes”.
The correct phrase is " in the current state of affairs ", or "in the state of things". If we say "currently we can't hire anyone", it means nothing. In the state of what? 4 – It should have been If after the servile verb (duty, will and power) there is the verb to be, then the correct auxiliary is the verb to have. So we have to write and say “it should have been easy”. However, in some cases we must use the verb to be as an auxiliary: "A good grammar could have been useful for writing in Italian". The Accademia della Crusca, however, gives some advice to never make mistakes. Consider the verb followed by the servile to discover the right auxiliary: I drove, I had to drive I have been, I had to stay I drank, I had to drink But pay attention to the following variations: I married Martufagna, I had to marry Martufagna I got married to Martufagna, I had to get married to Martufagna If after the servile there is the verb to be , then the correct auxiliary is to have : I could have been someone else I wanted to be a good friend I had to be compliant And what do we do if after the servile verb there is an intransitive one ? Then we can use both be and have : I had to leave I had to leave Ah, but there are also nominal particles like “ci”, “vi”, etc.